Probably about the same time they have a Falcon 9 come down to the ocean surface perfectly upright and at a speed that the Grasshopper landing legs could handle. Basically, I think this approach of working the problem from both ends and aiming to meet in the middle is really cute.

Probably about the same time they have a Falcon 9 come down to the ocean surface perfectly upright and at a speed that the Grasshopper landing legs could handle. Basically, I think this approach of working the problem from both ends and aiming to meet in the middle is really cute.

It's certainly a different way of doing things.

Even if they can't ever make it work (from an economic standpoint, anyway), it's been fascinating to watch.

If they can recover any substantial portion of the equipment from each launch, and turn it around faster and cheaper than new manufacturing, then the economics are positive. It's not like returning the rocket to the launch site is costing them very much operationally - some reduction in capacity, some extra fuel.

Heck, even if they can't reuse gear that comes back (wear and tear, and the risks thereof), they get way more engineering information out of the used articles than static fires and sensor readings. They can look at what pieces are and aren't suffering from the rigors of flight, and narrow excess margins where they overbuilt to reduce costs and increase performance.

It does seem that they learned from the mistakes of the Space Shuttle's 'reusability' plans. Rated working life on their parts are well beyond single flights - there shouldn't be the same "tear it down and reassemble from scratch" process this time around.

I wonder, though - might it be preferable, risk-wise, to fly high-value missions on a stack that's already flown once or twice? Successful flight testing is kind of the gold standard for operational acceptability. It would be really neat to see them offer progressively discounted launches on the first recovered stack, sending it up over and over again until it's completely worn to bits. More likely, though would be something like airlines' C checks between each flight - examine everything, but avoid disturbing too much.

Considering SpaceX has already demonstrated multiple equivalent flight capability on their engine test stand in Texas, I see little reason why they couldn't reuse the engines after an inspection (no teardown). Of course I expect them to do a full teardown of their first recovered engine on principal. After all, it may uncover something.

As to the economics, rockets consist of tanks (cheap), non-tank structure (cheap), electronics & GNC sensors (not cheap, but way cheaper than they used to be), and engines (not cheap). SpaceX already addressed the engine cost problem by using 9 smaller / simpler engines which helps drive economies of scale and the engines were designed for manufacturing rather than optimized for performance. If they can get a good recovery system down, then I expect SpaceX will put in a bit more performance at the expense of manufacturing costs because if you can get even 2 uses out of the engine then it cuts the effective manufacturing cost in half. Getting back the rest is just gravy.

SpaceX knows what the 1st stage costs to build. The questions that remain are:- what is the direct recurring cost of the recovery system (parachutes, legs, extra fuel, etc)- what is the indirect recurring cost of the recovery system - primarily lost mass-to-orbit but their could be others- what is the refurbishment cost- what (if any) is the discount that will be required to get people to fly on a used rocket?- what is the non-recurring cost to develop the whole system

If the 1st four add up to less than the cost of building a new 1st stage then the only other question is how long it takes to earn back the non-recurring costs (i.e. how long to turn a profit on the investment).

I still expect that (eventually) SpaceX will do GEO launches out of East Texas and recover the 1st stage in South Florida, launching into the gap between FL and Cuba. This still isn't as good as launching from the equator, but its just as good as launching from the Cape and gets them a private (or semi-private if others decide to launch there too) launch site where they aren't competing with NASA (if they ever get a dedicated launcher again... SLS?) and the DoD.

I still expect that (eventually) SpaceX will do GEO launches out of East Texas and recover the 1st stage in South Florida, launching into the gap between FL and Cuba. This still isn't as good as launching from the equator, but its just as good as launching from the Cape and gets them a private (or semi-private if others decide to launch there too) launch site where they aren't competing with NASA (if they ever get a dedicated launcher again... SLS?) and the DoD.

What's got me stumped is what's pure negotiating machinations and where they're really willing to go. Texas would make the launch site they own by far the most constrained in the inclinations they can launch to which sounds like a pretty big downside.

The idea of boost forward to Florida would have advantages but I don't think it relies on that as they're talking about doing boost back before the end of next year, which is too soon for Texas to be ready. Even though we can be justifiably skeptical of that timeframe it suggests that a Texas launch site is not a blocker. I also don't think the GEO launches represent most of their business if they do get reusability working.

I also don't think the GEO launches represent most of their business if they do get reusability working.

Not yet, but they are trying to break into the DoD market that is currently controlled by ULA. Additionally, the bulk of all satellite launches are GEO Commsats, so that's where the money is. It will be hard to compete with the Chinese or Russians on pure cost, but if they can keep up their reliability then SpaceX may win on the total business proposition through lower insurance costs.

Why SpaceX went after COTS is anybody's guess. Mine is that Elon really wants to go to space himself, and NASA's COTS program provide him a customer for a project he planned to pursue anyway. They took their planned Commsat launcher and used it instead for their Dragon capsule as it provided an early customer. For comparison, the mid-size Ariane 5G have roughly the same GTO throw weight, as do the Atlas V and Delta IV mediums - Dragon could fit mass/size wise on them although the interfaces would definitely need to be addressed.

It remains to be seen what SpaceX's business outside of NASA COTS will be, but I'm certain they won't restrict themselves to flying cargo & people for NASA.

Why SpaceX went after COTS is anybody's guess. Mine is that Elon really wants to go to space himself, and NASA's COTS program provide him a customer for a project he planned to pursue anyway. They took their planned Commsat launcher and used it instead for their Dragon capsule as it provided an early customer.

Declining to speak for attribution, the Chinese officials say they find the published prices on the SpaceX website very low for the services offered, and concede they could not match them with the Long March series of launch vehicles even if it were possible for them to launch satellites with U.S. components in them.

When you suggest reusability may allow SpaceX to compete with foreign launch providers, you are incorrectly suggesting they aren't already competitive. The reality is that SpaceX wins bids against Russia and China now, without a reusable launcher.

The skepticism now is whether SpaceX can ramp up to meet their obligations, and that won't require a reusable launcher, just hitting a steady cadence with the launcher they have already. Reusability could fail completely and they would still be competitive.

The prices that SpaceX charge are somewhat artificial in that they assume a launchrate that SpaceX has not achieved yet. According to Wikipedia, SpaceX has more than 3000 employees. If you figure out the ballpark of what that costs per year and divide by the number of launches, you get a rather alarming number.

Following up on what nj_kruse said, I can understand SpaceX is 'customer-cost' competitive with foreign launch vendors. I doubt they are making any money off those launches yet. Specifically, I think they are offering launch services at a loss to gain a foothold in the market and establish their long term target cost, rather than cover development costs early.

This fits within the business model that Elon is comfortable with, but eventually SpaceX will have to start turning a profit on launches. Because they are a private company the public (myself included) have no idea how long they will operate losing money... just that it can't be forever.

Thus, anything SpaceX can do to lower the per-launch cost is a good thing in the long run. The Falcon design was cost optimized (or so they say publicly) so that part has been addressed. Getting more launches per year is a good option, but not directly in SpaceX's control (gotta have customers). Recovering the 1st stage gives them another cost mitigator, if they can get it to work.

Thus, anything SpaceX can do to lower the per-launch cost is a good thing in the long run. The Falcon design was cost optimized (or so they say publicly) so that part has been addressed. Getting more launches per year is a good option, but not directly in SpaceX's control (gotta have customers). Recovering the 1st stage gives them another cost mitigator, if they can get it to work.

They've already got more customers than they have production capacity to service. Honestly, even if the re-used boosters cost them as much as the per-unit marginal cost of new ones, it would still help their economics - they could double their production capacity (or more, depending on reuse factor), and hence launch rate, without the capital cost of scaling up the bottlenecks in their manufacturing.

This fits within the business model that Elon is comfortable with, but eventually SpaceX will have to start turning a profit on launches. Because they are a private company the public (myself included) have no idea how long they will operate losing money... just that it can't be forever.

We actually do have this information because it's been disclosed. They're cashflow positive.

The prices that SpaceX charge are somewhat artificial in that they assume a launchrate that SpaceX has not achieved yet. According to Wikipedia, SpaceX has more than 3000 employees. If you figure out the ballpark of what that costs per year and divide by the number of launches, you get a rather alarming number.

My understanding is that they receive interim payments for upcoming launches. I agree that they have to ramp up the launch rate for this to be sustainable, but there is also no evidence that that they sell launches at a loss.

I also agree that they have to be able to cover the costs of a launch from start to finish and that interim payments may not match the burn rate for these activities, and some launches might dip into the red by the time all is said and done, but they're also extremely aggressive in cutting costs. Available information suggests the new launcher is actually cheaper than the previous one in spite of the increase in performance, and many of their launch contracts were signed assuming the previos one.

Thus, anything SpaceX can do to lower the per-launch cost is a good thing in the long run. The Falcon design was cost optimized (or so they say publicly) so that part has been addressed. Getting more launches per year is a good option, but not directly in SpaceX's control (gotta have customers). Recovering the 1st stage gives them another cost mitigator, if they can get it to work.

They've already got more customers than they have production capacity to service. Honestly, even if the re-used boosters cost them as much as the per-unit marginal cost of new ones, it would still help their economics - they could double their production capacity (or more, depending on reuse factor), and hence launch rate, without the capital cost of scaling up the bottlenecks in their manufacturing.

As long as they can actually ramp up launch rate to meet customer demand, otherwise many of their customers will look elsewhere. I'm not saying that SpaceX won't rise to the challenge, just that they haven't gotten there yet. Given that SpaceX's eastern site is shared with other launchers and its western site isn't operational yet, launch rates aren't entirely in their control.

As a point of reference, the original Falcon 1 launch was supposed to be out of Vandenberg AFB, but because there was a DoD vehicle (the last Titan if I remember correctly) on a nearby pad SpaceX wasn't allowed to launch. The delays led to SpaceX shifting to Kwaj for the Falcon 1. History shows this was the right call but SpaceX was understandably frustrated.

Range conflicts are the major driver behind SpaceX looking to setup a private launch site. They are also a major reason why Orbital decided to do COTS & Minotaur flights from MARS range rather than the Cape - fewer schedule conflicts offset the reduced performance from launching at ~38N vs. ~28N. Given where SpaceX is looking they are targeting GEO launches, because you can't get to polar orbits or the ISS from south Texas without overflying populated areas (major no-no unless you are China).

If they go with Texas, then commercial GEOs could launch from there (~26N, slightly better than CCAFS), COTS launches and some GEOs from CCAFS, and polar launches out of Vandenberg.

It remains to be seen if SpaceX will return to Kwaj and upgrade its facility there to handle the Falcon 9. Kwaj support launches to any orbit (~10N and no launch azimuth restrictions) but is a logistical nightmare due to its remote location and limited facilities.

I agree that 1st stage recovery would also help to address the launch rate issue by requiring fewer stages (engines mostly) to be manufactured and provide a parts inventory.

Following up on what nj_kruse said, I can understand SpaceX is 'customer-cost' competitive with foreign launch vendors. I doubt they are making any money off those launches yet. Specifically, I think they are offering launch services at a loss to gain a foothold in the market and establish their long term target cost, rather than cover development costs early.

To the best of our knowledge they're cashflow positive as a company and there's no evidence launches are sold at a loss.

Cashflow positive and making profit aren't necessarily the same thing. All the development work and infrastructure cost money. With 5 Falcon 9 and 2 Falcon 1 launches (not counting the 3 failed Falcon 1s) there is no way they've paid that off, but they are making great progress.

I'm not saying SpaceX isn't successful or won't make a profit in the future. They are making much of their money via progress payments for launches that are scheduled. Eventually they have to up their launch rates to clear that manifest. I'm confident they will.

Thus, anything SpaceX can do to lower the per-launch cost is a good thing in the long run. The Falcon design was cost optimized (or so they say publicly) so that part has been addressed. Getting more launches per year is a good option, but not directly in SpaceX's control (gotta have customers). Recovering the 1st stage gives them another cost mitigator, if they can get it to work.

They've already got more customers than they have production capacity to service. Honestly, even if the re-used boosters cost them as much as the per-unit marginal cost of new ones, it would still help their economics - they could double their production capacity (or more, depending on reuse factor), and hence launch rate, without the capital cost of scaling up the bottlenecks in their manufacturing.

As long as they can actually ramp up launch rate to meet customer demand, otherwise many of their customers will look elsewhere. I'm not saying that SpaceX won't rise to the challenge, just that they haven't gotten there yet. Given that SpaceX's eastern site is shared with other launchers and its western site isn't operational yet, launch rates aren't entirely in their control.

As a point of reference, the original Falcon 1 launch was supposed to be out of Vandenberg AFB, but because there was a DoD vehicle (the last Titan if I remember correctly) on a nearby pad SpaceX wasn't allowed to launch. The delays led to SpaceX shifting to Kwaj for the Falcon 1. History shows this was the right call but SpaceX was understandably frustrated.

Range conflicts are the major driver behind SpaceX looking to setup a private launch site. They are also a major reason why Orbital decided to do COTS & Minotaur flights from MARS range rather than the Cape - fewer schedule conflicts offset the reduced performance from launching at ~38N vs. ~28N. Given where SpaceX is looking they are targeting GEO launches, because you can't get to polar orbits or the ISS from south Texas without overflying populated areas (major no-no unless you are China).

If they go with Texas, then commercial GEOs could launch from there (~26N, slightly better than CCAFS), COTS launches and some GEOs from CCAFS, and polar launches out of Vandenberg.

It remains to be seen if SpaceX will return to Kwaj and upgrade its facility there to handle the Falcon 9. Kwaj support launches to any orbit (~10N and no launch azimuth restrictions) but is a logistical nightmare due to its remote location and limited facilities.

I agree that 1st stage recovery would also help to address the launch rate issue by requiring fewer stages (engines mostly) to be manufactured and provide a parts inventory.

Why isn't SpaceX setting up a range further south, say in Panama or French Guyana? Is that forbidden per contracts from NASA?

Why isn't SpaceX setting up a range further south, say in Panama or French Guyana? Is that forbidden per contracts from NASA?

Probably ITAR restrictions. Under ITAR (pending the 2013 Defense Authorization Bill) transfer of space technology to foreign countries (or foreign companies) by US companies is heavily restricted if not outright banned. Its caused all kinds of problems for the US Space industry.

So, under ITAR as it currently stands it is either very complicated (read expensive) or outright banned (depends on the tech) from transferring stuff to another country. That and getting clearance from the State Department is a royal pain.

Of course, if ITAR reform takes place that may change things.

As an aside, US companies can use foreign launch vendors, they just can't provide technical expertise to their launch provider outside of what is specifically authorized by the State Department. Because ULA is so expensive compared to foreign launch suppliers, its still economical for US companies to procure foreign launch services... until SpaceX changes that which looks to be in progress.

They're booked solid for years with commercial launches, to the point people are skeptical they will be able to actually fulfill the launches.

Indeed. Some are very skeptical.

I'm very curious to see what the rest of 2013 and then 2014 brings for SpaceX. I believe last year or two years ago they were still actively soliciting investors (>$1mil explicitly for investment into SpaceX, and I believe it was >$5mil or >$10mil for funds/trusts/entities not explicitly created to invest into SpaceX, maybe they still are.

Anyway trying not to tangent too much... but we'll see. 14 launches a year is how many engines? 140? That's quite a few compared to the 2 or 3 launches a year they've done so far...

Cashflow positive and making profit aren't necessarily the same thing. All the development work and infrastructure cost money. With 5 Falcon 9 and 2 Falcon 1 launches (not counting the 3 failed Falcon 1s) there is no way they've paid that off, but they are making great progress.

Not having paid that off is not the same thing as the marginal cost for a launch being more than what they're asking for the expendable version.

If Musk weren't a space zealot, I am virtually certain they could coast for decades with the vehicles they've developed already, in expendable form, with the prices they're charging (adjusting for inflation going forward). That they haven't paid off the infrastructure investment yet does not disagree with this.

Cashflow positive and making profit aren't necessarily the same thing. All the development work and infrastructure cost money. With 5 Falcon 9 and 2 Falcon 1 launches (not counting the 3 failed Falcon 1s) there is no way they've paid that off, but they are making great progress.

Not having paid that off is not the same thing as the marginal cost for a launch being more than what they're asking for the expendable version.

If Musk weren't a space zealot, I am virtually certain they could coast for decades with the vehicles they've developed already, in expendable form, with the prices they're charging (adjusting for inflation going forward). That they haven't paid off the infrastructure investment yet does not disagree with this.

If Musk weren't a space zealot, I am virtually certain they could coast for decades with the vehicles they've developed already, in expendable form, with the prices they're charging (adjusting for inflation going forward). That they haven't paid off the infrastructure investment yet does not disagree with this.

True enough. SpaceX is being run as a business because it has to be, but they are taking a lot more risks than the 'traditional' aerospace companies and I don't see that changing as long as Musk is in charge. That is most definitely a good thing.

As long as their booster recovery mechanisms don't interfere with mission operations, the risk is isolated to SpaceX's finances (development cost, mission cost), rather than touching their customers' payloads. At least, I would seriously hope that any sane engineering organization working in this space would prioritize safety and mission success over the needs of any subsequent recovery mechanism.

Really impressive would be if they could provide an abort-recovery option in the event of conditions that would prevent successful orbital insertion; e.g. three first-stage engines go out well before separation. Rather than ditching in the ocean, either the whole thing turns itself around and lands, or the separation continues with a plan of both stages heading for their recovery sites instead of pressing to a bad orbit.

Really impressive would be if they could provide an abort-recovery option in the event of conditions that would prevent successful orbital insertion; e.g. three first-stage engines go out well before separation. Rather than ditching in the ocean, either the whole thing turns itself around and lands, or the separation continues with a plan of both stages heading for their recovery sites instead of pressing to a bad orbit.

Nothing I've seen suggests that either stage will be capable of landing in those conditions. There would be added mass from fuel and payload. Supporting that would take extra mass in the landing apparatus. Both stages need to land empty.

Just to be really insane, imagine approaching it the way airliners that have to make emergency landings early in long-haul flights handle it - circle for long enough to dump sufficient fuel to land safely. That's probably not in the cards, but one can dream

Why isn't SpaceX setting up a range further south, say in Panama or French Guyana? Is that forbidden per contracts from NASA?

Probably ITAR restrictions. Under ITAR (pending the 2013 Defense Authorization Bill) transfer of space technology to foreign countries (or foreign companies) by US companies is heavily restricted if not outright banned. Its caused all kinds of problems for the US Space industry.

So, under ITAR as it currently stands it is either very complicated (read expensive) or outright banned (depends on the tech) from transferring stuff to another country. That and getting clearance from the State Department is a royal pain.

Of course, if ITAR reform takes place that may change things.

As an aside, US companies can use foreign launch vendors, they just can't provide technical expertise to their launch provider outside of what is specifically authorized by the State Department. Because ULA is so expensive compared to foreign launch suppliers, its still economical for US companies to procure foreign launch services... until SpaceX changes that which looks to be in progress.

What about places in the US closer to the equator as a launch site - like Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico,et cetera? Just too far away? Added complexity for ocean shipping?

What about places in the US closer to the equator as a launch site - like Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico,et cetera? Just too far away? Added complexity for ocean shipping?

SpaceX initially used Kwajalein Atoll which is 8 and change north and meets all export restrictions, but found the remoteness not worth the performance.

Europe finds the equatorial launch site worth it, but I think that involves a number of factors that aren't quite the same for SpaceX. For most purposes you want to launch towards the equator and east without overflying populated areas, which pretty much rules out Europe, but allows numerous options in the continental US.

What about places in the US closer to the equator as a launch site - like Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico,et cetera? Just too far away? Added complexity for ocean shipping?

Puerto Rico has much of the West Indies downrange.

Logistics probably. With the exception of Hawaii (and only if you chose the right island there) the logistics is still as hard, or nearly as hard as Kwaj, which offers the best option of all the US remote sites. Being closer to the US if everything has to be airlifted/shipped in and the entire site self-sustaining doesn't help too much. A CONUS launch site allows usage of freight rail networks in addition to airlift/sealift, as well as existing utility infrastructure.

I'm guessing the plans for I-69 down to Brownsville is helping for promoting the site's long-term viability. The nearest railhead is just a few miles away, at the port - which would make barging large items to the test site pretty easy.

SpaceX delaying for a couple weeks, blaming it on the government. (though they still need to have a successful test sequence with their new engines that they haven't had yet)

Will be interesting to see if the new engine version works. Is that why test fires failed so far?

...you're questioning whether the engine works because of a 2-week launch delay on a busy range with tight scheduling?

Where did you get the idea they haven't had a successful test fire? They did a full mission duration test fire over a year ago, a full duration test of a Falcon 9-R first stage a few months ago, they do a qualification test fire for every engine built, and the Grasshopper has been flying on a Merlin 1D since it was built. The engine quite definitely works.

SpaceX delaying for a couple weeks, blaming it on the government. (though they still need to have a successful test sequence with their new engines that they haven't had yet)

Will be interesting to see if the new engine version works. Is that why test fires failed so far?

Gee, and you wonder why SpaceX wants their own launch side... not that it would matter here as the site they are looking at can't do Polar launches. That said, range delays were an issue for the Falcon 1 and the major reason they moved the launch to Kwaj.

SpaceX delaying for a couple weeks, blaming it on the government. (though they still need to have a successful test sequence with their new engines that they haven't had yet)

Will be interesting to see if the new engine version works. Is that why test fires failed so far?

...you're questioning whether the engine works because of a 2-week launch delay on a busy range with tight scheduling?

Where did you get the idea they haven't had a successful test fire? They did a full mission duration test fire over a year ago, a full duration test of a Falcon 9-R first stage a few months ago, they do a qualification test fire for every engine built, and the Grasshopper has been flying on a Merlin 1D since it was built. The engine quite definitely works.

Not to mention that if they haven't had a successful test fire yet, they'd be pushing out a helluva lot farther than 2 weeks.

But yeah, they just completed a hot fire test at VAFB, so the engines are definitely not the problem.